Report this post

Originally posted by ShakyMo No lok I'm looking at per capita The UK has one of the lowest murder rates in the world at 1.2 per 100,000 on a par with places like Germany, Australia and Japan.

I don't know why you are saying 'no lok' as I never said that was false. You said "Talking out your arse there. UK is 4th most violent country in the world and usa 23rd - BULLSHIT" So I linked to the data that shows the stats for violent crimes. The UK is most certainly 2-4 times worse than the US by any measure.

On the first link: You are replying to a post where I agree with ShakyMo on the homocide rate. Like him, you're reading what you want to and not what's there. On the second link: That was English, now let's try math. 11 million crimes in the US. 6 million crimes in the UK. 350million people in the US. 63million people in the UK. Using the data that you just linked, the crime per capita is about 3 times higher in the UK.

Somenoe said it was relative, but looking closer at it it looks like it's total crime. If that's the case and the data is right, then so are you.

There's still no real definition of "crime". Something that constitutes filing a police report in the UK could be very different from something that constitutes filing a police report in France.

I'm reasonably sure that none of these things, homicide or not can be attributed to video games.

Report this post

I find it baffling how stubborn Americans are, they continue to put blames on other things rather than themselves.

Also what goes on in their "violent videogames" also goes on in real life overseas in the countries they are constantly deployed in, whats worse, violence in video games or violence in real life on an even larger scale where real lives are constantly lost due to unnnecessary wars.

Not all Americans. Most of those that do are called Liberals. They have a view that no one is responsible for their actions and everything can be blamed on someone/thing else.

They been making violent movies and tv shows since the media for them was developed. Unfortuantely Hollywood has a lot more pull so they are not targeted.

Video games (like comics and rock and roll before them) are just useful scapegoats. They are used to deflect attention and focus away from what really matters.

What really matters? Individual people, and their rights as well as *responsibilities*. Both "progressives" as well as "conservatives" tend to be collectivists. The state, and its power is at the very heart of their ideology. Lacking that power, they would not be able to inflict their ideology on others.

By shifting the focus to violent video games (or guns for that matter), they appear to be "doing something" about the problems, when in reality, its all sound bites and feel good emotional nonsense. This has happened countless times, through out the generations before. Until people start to critically examine their basic assumptions, this will not change.

On the first link: You are replying to a post where I agree with ShakyMo on the homocide rate. Like him, you're reading what you want to and not what's there.

On the second link: That was English, now let's try math. 11 million crimes in the US. 6 million crimes in the UK. 350million people in the US. 63million people in the UK. Using the data that you just linked, the crime per capita is about 3 times higher in the UK.

We might well be more criminal than the US, I haven't looked into it, however far less people die because guns aren't available. That's the point, not that Americans are worse but the lack of gun controls in the US leads to the far higher homicide rate.

"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

If you look at crime statistics the number one factor in crime is poverty. The poorer the country, generally the higher the crime rate. The poorer the city, generally the higher the crime rate - e.g. Detroit in the us. The poorer the neighbourhood within the city, generally the higher the crime.

They're are weird exceptions, like over here London is the wealthiest big city, but also has the highest crime, where as Sheffield is one of the poorest big cities but has the lowest crime rare of them. But generally speaking, the less money people have, especially compared to their nearby neighborhoods, the higher the crime rate.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Alot of people are arguing about or perhaps have an interest in the most or least violent countries. Here is the Global Peace Index findings for 2012 published by the Institute for Economics and Peace. I have no hog in this battle, just thought I'd post it. As an aside, I own 4 shotguns, 6 rifles, a muzzleloader and a pistol. I also have some boxcutters, scissors, a sword on the wall, a couple axes and a weedwhacker. I have no intention of harming anyone with them.

Report this post

After reading through this thread I've come to the following conclusions.

1. We are all friggin nuts in our own way

2. Mankind is a violent creature

3. Banning of video games, violent or otherwise is ridiculous

Now for my input,

First off, yes I am one of those gun-totting, fanatical, crazy, Americans that everyone around the world loves to hate. I have played video games dating all the back to the atari 2600, I have watched cartoons as a youngster and as an adult. I have been using firearms for fun since about 8 years of age. I own multiple firearms from a SEMI-automatic AR-15 to multiple types of hunting rifles some with scoops some without and pistols as well. I could list reasons for the legittimate ownership of every single gun I own based off of personel feeling and activities I do but I will not do so for your sanity as this post is already going to be long.

The thought of banning video game, movies, or the like is complete stupidity IMO. The thought of these being the root cause of violent acts is so rediculous to me, Im still having trouble beleiving we are having this discussion. We as a species are violent in nature we pass laws that try to restrict that nature through fear of what will be done to us as a result of breaking them Blaming an object for the ways in which it was used is stupidity of the finest form.

Now as far as gun banning, not to pop ya'lls bubbles but just to the south of the good old USA is Mexico. A country with some of the strictes gun laws in the west but look at the gun violence that occrs there.

IMO the viloence problem is a social issue that is not going to be fixed anytime soon. Some of the oldest cultures in the world are the most viloent. Someone with the intent to do harm in their heart is going to do harm weather it be with a gun, a knife, a bat, or rock they pick up off the ground. Mass vilence has been around since man began gathering in mass so should we then stop gathering.

All we can do as a people is to try to identify those that need help and get them that help as fast as possible.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Hey guys, just a little reminder that while this is a controversial topic, going into huge political debates, insulting other people's beliefs/cultures/nationalities are still not permitted. While we do have this post for feedback, the rules still apply.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by HighMarshal

The sad and stupid part is that the mom of the kid who shot all those children would have had a nearly impossible time haiving him committed. You pretty much have to do something viloent before the governement will take action.

Had he lived, they would have finally said, "You're right, he is a threat to people."

[mod edit]

That is complete BS. You can be drug off via emergency petition at the drop of a hat. You don't have to actually do anything wrong, say anything wrong, break any law, etc. All it takes is someone (ANYONE) picking up a phone and saying you are suicidal or that you might be dangerous, or making up whatever they want about you and the police will happily come (like 20 of them) to wherever you are, handcuff you, and kidnap you on the spot and haul you off to an emergency room for an evaluation. At that point you're either going to be evaluated and released right away, or they will keep you for up to 72 hours (3 days). It's honestly a 50/50 chance which one will happen, and it depends on a number of factors. Regardless, your day is being ruined for sure. And all of this is BEFORE any sort of actual commitment.

Yeah, unless you've gone to school for this stuff, you know people who have been through it, or you yourself have been through it... you have no idea how easy it actually is to make someone disappear into the system, at least for a while. I've also seen it abused MANY times. Ex-spouses, upset family members or friends, disgruntled employees. It gets abused all the time for many reasons. That's why they tend to do the 72 hour hold prior to any sort of real commitment, because it gives doctors a chance to truly observe someone and see what if any danger they do present. The majority of the time they don't present any danger to anyone.

True, but does that mean we should allow average citizens to make Nuclear weapons? How about Chemical weapons? There is always going to be human beings that want to harm others, SHOULD WE MAKE IT IT EASY FOR THEM TO DO??? Or hard...hmmm

Personal responsibility doesn’t take away from collective responsibility. We protect people from all sorts of stuff in civilized society, this conservative argument is not only weak, but infantile.

Wake up, and use your brain.

And the purpose of gun ownership is to allow people to protect themselves, whether that attacker is a random thug or government. From your profile, it appears you are Canadian, so I don't expect you to understand the reasons for gun ownership in America or America's gun culture. However, to say that quote above is attributed to conservatives only is false, especially in a thread where most people agree the solution is identifying and fixing the problems in society that cause people to commit violent crimes, and I seriously doubt this is a heavily conservative crowd. :)

The collective responsibility is to get help for the people that need it. The collective responsibility is to make sure that a person doesn't reach the point of committing such atrocities. Don't blame the thermometer for the temperature.

A gun is not a thermometer. False anology. The purpose of a gun is to kill people.It has no other purpose except for hunting.

Where I am from, and who I am, makes 0 diffrence to my argument. Ad hom's are the tactic of someone who knows their argument has lost, or they are simply ignorant of basic logic. Two options, which is it?

So the question remains: Do you want to make it easier or harder for people to kill others?

So which is it?

A firearm is a tool, like a spoon. Leave it on a table, it does nothing until someone picks it up.

Should boxcutters be banned or did they do the right thing by going after the bad guys?

Don't insult your readers intelligence. A gun is not a spoon. False Analogy. You keep trying diffrent ones thinking it makes any diffrence.

Guns are used to kill living things, automatic weapons, handguns, are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Pro or anti gun control, this FACT remains no matter what silly false analogy you want use. Hunting is just a smoke screen since a single shot rifle is plenty good enough for any hunter.

Ad hom is a distraction tactic used to try and take away someones credibility when the facts of the argument are no longer working for them. Where I live, what race or nationality I am, what I eat for breakfast, or whether or not I am a poo poo brain, all are irrelevant to the argument made. The argument that you still don’t seem to want to think about.

So I will ask it again.

Do we want to make it harder or easier for mass murderers to slaughter large amounts of people?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Excellent article, Pokket. I have played my share of violent video games, but I know the difference between reality and fantasy quite well and can easily separate the two. I have been treated for depression and bipolar disorder (and I was a holy terror as a kid) but I am not a violent person by any means. In fact I have a weakness for cute things like teddy bears and babies LOL.

Parents are ultimately responsible for what they introduce their children to. It's not that hard to educate yourself about what kind of material a game or movie contains and then decide if it is appopriate for your child. Being ignorant is no excuse. And I fully believe the government here in America is looking for any convienent scrapegoat they can find. Mental health is not a high priority in America but it should be - recieving the proper treatment for mental conditions helps prevent a LOT of problems.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by ObiClownobi

We might well be more criminal than the US, I haven't looked into it, however far less people die because guns aren't available. That's the point, not that Americans are worse but the lack of gun controls in the US leads to the far higher homicide rate.

Re the gun issue, I think it boils down to the simple fact that it's much harder to commit mass murder with a knife than it is with a gun, any gun, which is also probably why some of the poorer countries tend to have more of a problem with suicide bombers(fertilizer is much easier to produce than guns/missiles).

As for violent videogames and movies, call me a carebear if you must but I firmly believe in keeping them under tight age restrictions, just like all violent news stories should not be aired during "family" hours. The more a person is exposed to something, be it sex, violence, discrimination, or whatever, the more desensitized one gets to it.

Death used to be scary and undesirable, something parents would steer their children away from even hearing about let alone watching on tv, reading about in the newspapers, and certainly not taking them to movies or buying them games that glorified it, now it seems that they're all grooming their kids to become the next big werewolf or vampire sensation, or honey booboo or some other variant of child explotation.:/

Yes the "boys" will always want their bigger and better"toys" and the women will always swarm to the alpha male thus perpetuating the whole war/death syndrome, all we can do is try to keep it from destroying the human race and if it takes some big brother controls to help do that, I don't see a huge problem with it. After all we let them control our food chain and that is what will ultimately end up finishing us all off if they don't smarten up and stop poisoning it with pesticides, genetic tampering etc.

True, but does that mean we should allow average citizens to make Nuclear weapons? How about Chemical weapons? There is always going to be human beings that want to harm others, SHOULD WE MAKE IT IT EASY FOR THEM TO DO??? Or hard...hmmm

Personal responsibility doesn’t take away from collective responsibility. We protect people from all sorts of stuff in civilized society, this conservative argument is not only weak, but infantile.

Wake up, and use your brain.

And the purpose of gun ownership is to allow people to protect themselves, whether that attacker is a random thug or government. From your profile, it appears you are Canadian, so I don't expect you to understand the reasons for gun ownership in America or America's gun culture. However, to say that quote above is attributed to conservatives only is false, especially in a thread where most people agree the solution is identifying and fixing the problems in society that cause people to commit violent crimes, and I seriously doubt this is a heavily conservative crowd. :)

The collective responsibility is to get help for the people that need it. The collective responsibility is to make sure that a person doesn't reach the point of committing such atrocities. Don't blame the thermometer for the temperature.

A gun is not a thermometer. False anology. The purpose of a gun is to kill people.It has no other purpose except for hunting.

Where I am from, and who I am, makes 0 diffrence to my argument. Ad hom's are the tactic of someone who knows their argument has lost, or they are simply ignorant of basic logic. Two options, which is it?

So the question remains: Do you want to make it easier or harder for people to kill others?

So which is it?

A firearm is a tool, like a spoon. Leave it on a table, it does nothing until someone picks it up.

Should boxcutters be banned or did they do the right thing by going after the bad guys?

Don't insult your readers intelligence. A gun is not a spoon. False Analogy. You keep trying diffrent ones thinking it makes any diffrence.

Guns are used to kill living things, automatic weapons, handguns, are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Pro or anti gun control, this FACT remains no matter what silly false analogy you want use. Hunting is just a smoke screen since a single shot rifle is plenty good enough for any hunter.

Ad hom is a distraction tactic used to try and take away someones credibility when the facts of the argument are no longer working for them. Where I live, what race or nationality I am, what I eat for breakfast, or whether or not I am a poo poo brain, all are irrelevant to the argument made. The argument that you still don’t seem to want to think about.

So I will ask it again.

Do we want to make it harder or easier for mass murderers to slaughter large amounts of people?

No, a firearm isn't a spoon. But BOTH are only tools. They have various functions. Firearms aren't *only* for killing things. Some people use them for target practice, and never kill anything (look at the Olympics for example) . Some people collect them. Again, they never kill anything. Its all about how a tool is used.

In response to your last, do you want to make it *harder*, or *easier* for law abiding people to defend themselves from dangerous criminals?

Report this post

Originally posted by cheyaneWhy isn't the easy ability to buy semi automatic assault weapons the issue instead of video games.

Did you know in 2011, more people were stabbed to death than were killed by assualt weapons. Bats, too. Bare hand were the cause of more murders as well.

Did you know that in the 10 years that assault rifles were banned, it had no significant impact on the number of people being killed with them? No study, sponsored by any group, was able to find any correlation to a reduction in violent crime with or without the ability to purchase legally an assault rifle.

Something like 6000 people were killed by a handgun in 2011, compared to just over 300 assault rifles.

No one's blamig handguns though. I personally believe that the banning of handguns would be fine, and every american of sound mind shouldn't just be able to purchase an M16, but should be encouraged to do so.

As long as a government is equiping soldiers with assault rifles, so to should the citizens; especially citizen militia. You do not hunt with a pistol, and you would be hard pressed to stand up to your government with one as well.

Even if profits weren't involved, the US government (mine) would rather ban assualt rifles than ban handguns. No government likes it's citizens armed with assualt riffles. It's naive to think they would.

Thomas Jefferson believed that a government needed to be reminded who was in power ever 20 years or so, through citizen uprising. The same guy that helped to give us the right to bear arms, felt it was our job to periodically use them against our government.

He believed that was the only way to prevent a government from becoming corrupt. He believed that even during his 2 terms as president.

Considering the state of our government, I really can't say he was wrong.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by BitterClinger

More American were murdered in Chicago in 2012 than NATO forces (incl. U.S.) were killed in Afghanistan. This isn't because Chicago has a high concentration of rampaging gamers, and it isn't because Chicago doesn't have enough gun laws.

LET ME THROW SOME STATS AT YOU ... softly:

. In 2011, according to fbi.gov, California had 1,790 total murders, 1,220 which were caused by handguns. This number doubles that of any other state, including TX that had 1,089 murders, 699 were with firearms.

. In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep

. In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant

. In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales

. ...the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban

. Chicago did a handgun ban in 1982. In 1995 the law was amended and in 2010 many of the laws passed in chicago and suburbs were repealed. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Pokket

Originally posted by BitterClinger

More American were murdered in Chicago in 2012 than NATO forces (incl. U.S.) were killed in Afghanistan. This isn't because Chicago has a high concentration of rampaging gamers, and it isn't because Chicago doesn't have enough gun laws.

LET ME THROW SOME STATS AT YOU ... softly:

. In 2011, according to fbi.gov, California had 1,790 total murders, 1,220 which were caused by handguns. This number doubles that of any other state, including TX that had 1,089 murders, 699 were with firearms.

. In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep

. In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant

. In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales

. ...the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban

. Chicago did a handgun ban in 1982. In 1995 the law was amended and in 2010 many of the laws passed in chicago and suburbs were repealed. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.

True, but does that mean we should allow average citizens to make Nuclear weapons? How about Chemical weapons? There is always going to be human beings that want to harm others, SHOULD WE MAKE IT IT EASY FOR THEM TO DO??? Or hard...hmmm

Personal responsibility doesn’t take away from collective responsibility. We protect people from all sorts of stuff in civilized society, this conservative argument is not only weak, but infantile.

Wake up, and use your brain.

And the purpose of gun ownership is to allow people to protect themselves, whether that attacker is a random thug or government. From your profile, it appears you are Canadian, so I don't expect you to understand the reasons for gun ownership in America or America's gun culture. However, to say that quote above is attributed to conservatives only is false, especially in a thread where most people agree the solution is identifying and fixing the problems in society that cause people to commit violent crimes, and I seriously doubt this is a heavily conservative crowd. :)

The collective responsibility is to get help for the people that need it. The collective responsibility is to make sure that a person doesn't reach the point of committing such atrocities. Don't blame the thermometer for the temperature.

A gun is not a thermometer. False anology. The purpose of a gun is to kill people.It has no other purpose except for hunting.

Where I am from, and who I am, makes 0 diffrence to my argument. Ad hom's are the tactic of someone who knows their argument has lost, or they are simply ignorant of basic logic. Two options, which is it?

So the question remains: Do you want to make it easier or harder for people to kill others?

So which is it?

A firearm is a tool, like a spoon. Leave it on a table, it does nothing until someone picks it up.

Should boxcutters be banned or did they do the right thing by going after the bad guys?

Don't insult your readers intelligence. A gun is not a spoon. False Analogy. You keep trying diffrent ones thinking it makes any diffrence.

Guns are used to kill living things, automatic weapons, handguns, are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Pro or anti gun control, this FACT remains no matter what silly false analogy you want use. Hunting is just a smoke screen since a single shot rifle is plenty good enough for any hunter.

Ad hom is a distraction tactic used to try and take away someones credibility when the facts of the argument are no longer working for them. Where I live, what race or nationality I am, what I eat for breakfast, or whether or not I am a poo poo brain, all are irrelevant to the argument made. The argument that you still don’t seem to want to think about.

So I will ask it again.

Do we want to make it harder or easier for mass murderers to slaughter large amounts of people?

No, a firearm isn't a spoon. But BOTH are only tools. They have various functions. Firearms aren't *only* for killing things. Some people use them for target practice, and never kill anything (look at the Olympics for example) . Some people collect them. Again, they never kill anything. Its all about how a tool is used.

In response to your last, do you want to make it *harder*, or *easier* for law abiding people to defend themselves from dangerous criminals?

A spoon is a tool to eat food with, not to kill efficiently with. Why is this so hard to grasp?? A gun is tool for KILLING. End of story. This is not debatable, this is the facts. Gun control or not, stop with the "its only a tool" line of bunk reasoning. Find a better argument as this one clearly fails.

With this line of reasoning citizens should have the right to build nuclear weapons. Its only a tool...

We are not talking about a multipurpose instrument here. Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, and no one is suggesting taking away peoples hunting rifles. You don’t need an assault rifle to protect yourself, heck a stun gun would work, what are armed militias invading your neighborhood? So you live in Afghanistan or something that you need Ak47's to protect yourself?? Give me a break.

I just don’t understand this sort of religious zealotry some Americans have over this issue, its like they have blinders on to common sense.